Comparing intralesional triamcinolone and verapamil‐triamcinolone injections in keloids: A single‐blinded randomised clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In this clinical trial, we investigated the efficacy of two treatment methods for keloids resulting from surgical incisions: intralesional triamcinolone injections alone versus in combination with verapamil. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were divided into two groups: one received triamcinolone alone (Group T) and the other received a triamcinolone-verapamil blend (Group VT). Regular treatments were conducted until the keloids were nearly flat or for a maximum of eight sessions. RESULTS: Both groups showed significant improvements, but Group VT saw quicker resolution of skin redness and needed fewer sessions. Though the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were generally similar across both groups, Group VT exhibited greater improvements, leading to lower final scores. The VT group also attained normal scar flexibility faster than the T group. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the combination of verapamil and triamcinolone provides a more effective treatment for keloids, thereby highlighting the potential of verapamil in scar reduction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".